Does it count as DIY?

[Robin]

Just run the cars for 15 minutes with aircon on to keep the aircon oil circulated. Left me wondering: does this count as DIY if one is in want of a chauffeur?

[Brian Gaff (Sofa)]

Preventative maintenance, I'd say. Brian

[Andrew]

I had to wash my car yesterday because a gigantic bird had crapped on it. Then I went for a 15 mile drive to charge up the battery and clean the crud off the disks. Plenty of other cars on the road.

Air con ?. Mine gave up the ghost ages ago.

[T i m]

Is that allowed, or would you have to prove that it was actually preventing something?

What about 'idling and the pollution?

I had a mate offer me to take his Merc out for a run yesterday. I (politely) turned him down.

1) Because 'he didn't need it going on a run', he has the opportunity to charge it outside his house if that was the issue and the money to buy a solar charger if the cba to plug one in the mains.

2) Taking a car for a run under these circumstances would count (to me and possibly the 5-O) as a good reason.

3) I've not been out in my own car for nearly 3 weeks and so if I was going to do that in any car, it would be my own.

And it's not a matter of 'who would know' or carrying some food with you as an excuse, it's all about not doing anything that could put any unnecessary load on the NHS.

Mum (90) said she was going to use the lockdown to have a 'good clearout' and I warned her against it. I reminded her that there were no charity shops open, the dump was closed and none of us would be available to run any such about if they were.

She took no notice of course and then caught her leg on the edge of a plastic crate and ripped a load of skin off. After it had soaked two tea towels in stuff, she was able to get it under control and a dressing on it.

She is 90, has a nice back garden and loves knitting, that's what she should have been doing, not risking us and the emergency services, or herself, had she had to go into hospital or even deal with a visiting nurse or paramedic.

Another mate said it was going to pop (in the car, 2 mins drive) down to Screwfix, Click N Collect. It sounded like he wanted to do something because he was bored, not because it was an 'emergency repair' or 'essential food / medical shopping'. When I questioned him he said he would be careful, wear / use PPE etc? I explained that wasn't the point, what of the AA driver or the Paramedic, should the worst happen and couldn't he have it delivered (or not bother doing it). I asked him of he couldn't walk there, assuming it wasn't too big / heavy but I didn't get a reply.

Why is it some people seem happy to risk 'getting away' with stuff, rather doing what they are supposed, that the rules don't apply to them?

Cheers, T i m

[newshound]

I run both the cars a couple of times a week to collect shopping that I cannot reasonably carry on foot. I take the view that by *not* taking up delivery slots I am helping those who don't have cars, or who are stuck inside with symptoms.

[charles]

When this lock down started, I decided that my garden shed needed another coatn of wood preservative. But my part used tin ran out before I'd finished. Couldn't finds tehbn rightb colour on ebay or Amazon, but found it at Homebase - who theoritically deliver. I've had an email saying it might be delayed and |I still haven't seen it after 3 weeks. But, I get almost daily emails offering goods which I don't want and will be delivered. I might have to wend my way to Screwfix.

[Robin]

As it happens the cars were on the road so I needed reasonable excuse to leave home. I stood ready to argue I had that given I was at most 5m from home; that I was at all times more than 5m from other people; and that use of a car may well be necessary to provide care of assistance.

And in passing *proving* that an action actually prevented a failure seems to me often problematic. Eg if I change my worn (but still working) brake pads I can argue I've prevented a future brake failure. But can I /prove/ that without having both the old and new pads examined by an expert, to show that I didn't replace quality pads by fraudulent rubbish that'll fail within 100 miles?

I was doing other things in parallel which IMHO brought me within 98(2)(b).

[T i m]

But that could well apply to anyone with a car then?

Quite.

Indeed.

Daughter has done our shopping twice now (as we've not been out for

12+ days now, at all) and done so whilst also on her way to / from work (key worker so out and about anyway) and whilst also shopping for herself and my Mum.

If I go out and find the car sounding sluggish to start, I'll run a mains lead out over the pavement, put a rubber mat over it and leave it on charge all day (in the light).

Or, if this looks like a long term thing, dig one of the many solar chargers out. ;-)

The kitcar has been used *very* infrequently over the last 10+ years (awaiting electric conversion) and will often re-start from it's own battery, once I put the battery disconnect key back in etc.

Cheers, T i m

[Robin]

I don't see how.

[T i m]

Because anyone with a car could need it at a moments notice to take someone to hospital, as you yourself suggested (worst case)?

Just in the same way anyone carrying a mobile phone could be called upon to call the emergency services etc (so anyone 'sensible' would ensure it was fully charged before setting off or had charging en-route (in car or portable battery pack etc), if only for their own emergency needs)?

So, either of us might need to drive the other (or a friend, family or neighbour) to hospital at any time of the night or day and so maybe we should all go out there, sit in them and run them for 20 minutes every what, 7 days?

Cheers, T i m

[Robin]

I do not see where I suggested "anyone with a car could need it at a moments notice to take someone to hospital".

I used the phrase "may well be necessary". In normal English usage "may well" conveys not a remote possibility but one which is likely (if not more likely than not) to occur.

But if you think the police and courts would construe the regulations differently that's your right.

[ARW]

Gin shortage?

I know she has used my car as I did not park it in the fence.

[Robin]

I don't doubt that gin could be a "basic necessity" for some. But "in the fence" suggests any shortage was short-lived or dealt with by substitution. And it'll all be your fault anyway for not being there.

[T i m]

I didn't quote you so I didn't. Not sure how that differs from what you did say though: "and that use of a car may well be necessary to provide care of assistance." (and the spirit of what I said).

That's where the word 'could' comes in mate.

Along with 'could'. Next!

The instance where the 5-O might decide you were 'pushing your luck' and then report you the CPS or took a fine could would be a function of how you dealt with it at the time and how much of it they had to deal with that day.

Running your car, stationary or by driving it may be deemed unnecessary, especially if you had an accident whilst doing the latter. It may have to be deemed 'reasonable *if* that it was the

*only* way to keep it ready for use and the need was justifiable (against say calling an ambulance).

My sister is immune deficient (post chemo) and felt it was reasonable to drive to the local woods to minimise her chance of interpersonal contact on the way (the woods are huge and typically empty). The 5-O didn't see the risk to her greater / more important than the risk to others of them breaking down in the car or having an accident and told her / them not to do it again.

Running your engine whilst stationary as a means to charge the battery might not get the attention of the 5-P and any 'idling / pollution rules (during the Covid-19 thing especially) but driving it for no other reason than to 'keep it charged up' may not be quite so easy for them to ignore.

In the UK you aren't supposed to display an L plate and be in the car on your own in the same way a married couple out walking *together* in Italy have to maintain the minimum 2m distancing, *because* having to check for that is wasting Police time and putting them (the Police) at unnecessary risk as well.

You may consider your reasons are just, however many could use the same 'excuse / reason' to just go out for a drive ...

You might be happy to take it to court, most wouldn't want to take the risk and prefer to follow the 'spirit' of the process.

I wouldn't typically bake my own bread but have been doing because of the circumstances. You may drive your car every 10 days to make sure it's charged but 'now' you might be advised to get and read how to use a charger of some sort?

Cheers, T i m

[Commander Kinsey]

Why is it people think they're not allowed out? We are not in a lockdown. All we are supposed to do is keep our distance from people. Inside your car you are not going to be able to cough over anyone are you?

[T i m]

<snip>

Because it's the rules.

We are.

When outside when getting essential food, medical shopping or exercise.

Depends if you are still alive when the Fire Brigade / Paramedics get there after the accident, or the Ambulance get's you back to A&E alive to cough over the triage nurses?

Or the AA driver or petrol station cashier if you are lucky.

Right, now back in your box. ;-)

Cheers, T i m

[polygonum_on_google]

We took advantage of partner having made some safety things requested by local hospital to the person organising it. A pleasant half hour each way.

Tesco have told people they can't increase deliveries and PLEASE go to the shop. Morrisons takes forever to even get into their site and have limited capacity.

[Robin]

I didn't say you quoted me. I asked where I had suggested what you claimed I had in your:

"Because anyone with a car could need it at a moments notice to take someone to hospital, as you yourself suggested (worst case)?"

Yet again you don't answer the question posed.

And the difference from what I did post is quite simple: I was making a claim based on *my *circumstances. That's a simple matter of reading what I did post. Let me boil it down for you as it was a long sentence. The relevant words were:

"I stood ready to argue...that use of a car may well be necessary to provide care of [sic - shd be "or"] assistance."

The difference from what you claim is equivalent is my use of "I" - not "any person with use of a car". So with specific persons I could name in mind and their specific care needs, not some random case that you invent.

The fact that you equate "could" with "may well be" might explain much; or of course might just be more smoke.

[Commander Kinsey]

Oh aren't you a good little boy? Myself and everyone I know are just going about their lives as normal. Except for taking the stupid government handouts and getting a free 3 months holiday.

What accident?

No worse than the Tesco delivery bloke. Oh wait, the government wants us to all go to shops and infect people because we have to go three times more often as they limit how much we can buy at once.

I'll do what the f*ck I like.

[T i m]

And I replied to that:

"But that could well apply to anyone with a car then?"

Sorry that doesn't focus on you enough for you liking.

The issue here isn't whether you think you have sufficient justification / excuse to do what you want, but that if you think you do, many others can thing the same.

Just because you may (or may not, ITRW) feel obliged to prepare to drive someone with special care needs, is little different (re preparedness) from any of us who have cars, having to drive someone who suddenly finds themselves in the same position (needing transportation to deal with that special care).

The only smoke is coming out of your car. There is none coming out of mine or most other peoples (who could equally, using your justification) but they aren't.

No one is questioning your justification for good preparedness, just how you are going about it (in these circumstances).

Cheers, T i m